A Dorset man has been jailed for 18 months after posting social media messages calling for violence against migrants and urging people to target hotels housing asylum seekers, despite a court hearing that the posts were seen by just 33 people.

Luke Yarwood, 36, was sentenced at Bournemouth Crown Court after admitting publishing written material intended to stir up racial hatred, following two posts made in the aftermath of the car attack at the Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, in December 2024, in which six people were killed and hundreds injured.

According to details aired in court, the offending posts were made during a period of heightened tension online and in public life, with false claims circulating about the Magdeburg attacker’s identity and motive. The court heard that, at the time, posts later shown to be untrue suggested the driver was an Islamic extremist, fuelling heated reactions on social media.

Prosecutors said Yarwood’s language went beyond political comment and amounted to an attempt to incite hatred and violence. The court heard that, responding to a post about people taking to the streets in Germany and demanding their country back, Yarwood wrote: “Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.” In a second post, he wrote: “I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.”

Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, told the court the messages were “extremely unpleasant posts” and argued they carried a real-world risk in an already charged climate. She said they had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, close to where Yarwood lived. Although the two posts central to the case had minimal views, she said Yarwood’s other messages in the same timeframe had been viewed more widely, including some seen more than 800 times, and that he engaged with larger accounts.

The defence argued the limited reach of the posts showed they were not likely to have practical consequences. His lawyer described them as the “impotent rantings of a socially-isolated man” with no “real-world” impact, and said the 33 views should be taken into account. However, the prosecution maintained that the content and intent of the posts were what mattered, particularly in a national context where asylum accommodation sites had become flashpoints for protest and police deployments.

In sentencing, Judge Jonathan Fuller said the remarks were “odious” and were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence. He rejected the suggestion that the low number of views should blunt the seriousness of what was being urged. The judge told Yarwood: “This is not a court of politics but law. You are entitled to express your views, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it’s a qualified one. What the law prohibits is the stirring up of racial hatred. The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.”

He added: “The tweets speak for themselves, they are odious in the extreme. There could be few clearer examples of words specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence. They are serious offences that could have had serious consequences and can only be marked by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.”

The court heard Yarwood, from Burton near Christchurch, posted a series of anti-Muslim and anti-immigration messages between December 21, 2024 and January 29, 2025. Prosecutors said that while two posts crossed the legal threshold by encouraging arson and violence, other messages in the same period, described as showing a “rabid dislike” for foreigners and particularly Islam, were not charged as stirring up racial hatred or inciting violence. The court was told these included comments about hearing less English spoken in Bournemouth and seeing asylum seekers outside a hotel.

 

In mitigation, Nick Tucker, defending, said: “He acknowledges the views he expressed were uneducated, ignorant and odious.” He added: “The defendant is not at heart a racist, he simply found this to be a convenient channel for his discontent.” Tucker urged the court to distinguish between what he described as a committed racist ideologue and “someone disaffected, ill-educated and misinformed who reaches for the most convenient subject for his rather inarticulate rantings.”

The case has drawn attention because of the small number of views attributed to the two posts, but the legal framework in England and Wales places weight on the nature of the material and the defendant’s intent, not only how many people saw it. The relevant offences sit within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises, among other things, publishing threatening, abusive or insulting material intended to stir up racial hatred, and includes provisions addressing questions of intent and context.

Sentencing guidance for racial hatred offences published by the Sentencing Council sets out considerations around culpability and harm, including factors such as whether there was an intention to incite serious violence or persistent activity, as well as the circumstances of publication and the likely impact. The guidance is designed to help courts assess seriousness across a wide spectrum of conduct, from reckless provocation to deliberate encouragement of violence.

In court, prosecutors also compared Yarwood’s case to that of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed after posting online following the Southport stabbings. Connolly’s case, which involved material posted on X that prosecutors said was intended to stir up racial hatred, has been used in courtrooms and public debate as an example of how quickly online misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric can escalate in the wake of a violent event. Connolly was sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment, and the Crown Prosecution Service said she had posted “just hours after the killings” after encountering false information online, calling for mass deportation and for hotels housing immigrants to be set on fire.

Yarwood’s posts were made after the Magdeburg attack, which German prosecutors allege was carried out by a Saudi doctor living in Germany, accused of murder and attempted murder on a large scale. The case has been treated in Germany as one of the country’s most significant recent attacks, with hundreds of injured victims and a wide group of co-plaintiffs involved in the proceedings.

The Bournemouth court heard that, in the UK, the atmosphere around asylum accommodation sites remained highly contentious and that there were ongoing protests around such locations. Prosecutors said Yarwood’s language explicitly urged people to commit arson at migrant hotels and then to “head to MPs’ houses and Parliament”, framing violence as “the only way now” and calling for the country to be taken over “by FORCE”. The judge concluded the seriousness of those words required immediate custody, describing Yarwood as having a “preoccupation with immigrants” and “a particular obsession with Islam” alongside “some extreme right-wing views”.

The case underscores the scrutiny applied by courts and prosecutors to online material that advocates violence, particularly at moments when public tensions are already high following traumatic events. While the defence urged the court to treat Yarwood’s messages as empty venting with a tiny audience, the judge’s ruling stressed that the law draws a line where speech moves into stirring up racial hatred and incitement to violence, regardless of whether it is ultimately acted upon or widely shared.